Telangana HC Stays Temple Priest Notification, Directs State to Resolve Agama Ritual Dispute at Palakurthy Devasthanam
Hereditary Archakas of Sri Someshwara Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam challenged a recruitment notification prescribing Vaidika Smartha Agama eligibility over their 150-year Shaiva Agama tradition.
The Telangana High Court on 22 June 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by hereditary priests of Sri Someshwara Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Palakurthy, Jangaon District, challenging a temple recruitment notification that prescribed eligibility based on Vaidika Smartha Agama rather than the Shaiva Agama tradition their family has followed for more than 150 years. Mrs. Justice Surepalli Nanda, sitting singly, directed the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the State Government under Section 93 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and in the meantime stayed further proceedings under the impugned notification until the State passes appropriate orders. The order turns on a prior direction by the Commissioner of Endowments that the petitioners had not challenged, and which the Court held had attained finality for purposes of the present writ.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioners — Devagiri Venkata Rajeshwara Sharma and others — belong to a family that has served as hereditary Archakas at Sri Someshwara Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Palakurthy, for over six generations spanning more than 150 years. Their case is that all temple rituals have been performed continuously and without interruption in accordance with Shaiva Agama practice, and that this tradition has been recognised by temple authorities across successive generations.
On 23 November 2025, Respondent No. 6 — the Devasthanam itself — issued notification No. SSLNT/PLK/Notification/2025 pursuant to a memo dated 4 November 2025 from Respondent No. 2, inviting applications to fill three vacant Priest posts and one Assistant Cook post. The eligibility criteria in that notification were framed by reference to Vaidika Smartha Agama, not Shaiva Agama.
The petitioners submitted representations on 7 January 2026, 10 February 2026, and 16 March 2026 requesting that the eligibility criteria be corrected to replace “Vaidika Smartha Agama” with “Shaiva Agama”. Receiving no response, they approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notification illegal and directing the respondents to consider their representations.
The Prior Commissioner's Memo and Its Legal Significance
At the heart of the controversy lies a sequence of administrative proceedings that predates the impugned notification. In August 2021, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal, passed an order under Section 43(10) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987), recorded in R.Dis. No. A/1385/2021 dated 16 August 2021, altering the temple's ritual procedure from Vaidika Smartha Agama to Shaiva Agama.
That order did not survive scrutiny at a higher level. On receipt of objections and after considering a report submitted by the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad dated 18 May 2022, the Commissioner of Endowments issued Memo R.C. No. C1/362/2022 dated 15 June 2022. The Commissioner kept the August 2021 proceedings in abeyance, recorded that the Assistant Commissioner had acted without competence under Section 43(10) of Act 30 of 1987, and directed continuation of the old practice as per Vaidika Smartha Agama pending appropriate action in accordance with rules and the sampradayam of the Devasthanam.
The respondent No. 6's Standing Counsel, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, relied on this memo to argue that the Commissioner's direction had not been challenged by the petitioners, had attained finality, and continued to hold the field. It was on that basis, he submitted, that the impugned notification prescribed Vaidika Smartha Agama as the applicable ritual tradition for the vacant posts.
Petitioners' Challenge and the Threshold Argument
Sri R. Chandrashekar Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, pressed three points before the Court. He argued that the age-old Shaiva Agama ritual procedure, in uninterrupted practice for more than 150 years, could not be substituted through an administrative notification without notice to existing Archakas, without calling for objections, and without conducting any enquiry into the traditional practices actually followed at the temple. Issuing the notification in those circumstances, he contended, violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987.
He further submitted that the respondents ought not to proceed with the notification dated 23 November 2025 or the consequential proceedings dated 23 March 2026 unless and until a decision was first taken on the petitioners' objections and representations.
Counsel for the petitioners did not, however, dispute the Standing Counsel's submission that the Commissioner's Memo dated 15 June 2022 had not been challenged. He confined his request to seeking protection of the petitioners' interests until appropriate orders were passed by the first respondent — the State of Telangana — on the petitioners' representation.
How the Court Reasoned
Mrs. Justice Surepalli Nanda found that the appropriate course was for the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the first respondent under Section 93 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, directed against the Commissioner's Memo R.C. No. C1/362/2022 dated 15 June 2022.
The Court's reasoning proceeded from a concrete procedural gap: the memo that placed Vaidika Smartha Agama back as the operative ritual tradition was the Commissioner's direction of June 2022. That memo had kept the Assistant Commissioner's 2021 order in abeyance and directed continuation of the old practice. It was not challenged. The impugned notification of November 2025 flowed from that unchallenged direction. A writ petition directly attacking the notification therefore could not be entertained when the foundational memo had attained finality and a statutory appellate remedy remained available.
The Court noted the availability of a remedy under Section 93 of Act 30 of 1987, which provides for an appeal before the State Government against orders of the Commissioner. That remedy, in the Court's view, was the correct vehicle for the petitioners to put their objections to the June 2022 Memo on record and seek a decision on the ritual tradition to be followed at the Devasthanam.
Directions Issued
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioners were directed to approach Respondent No. 1 — the State of Telangana — against Memo R.C. No. C1/362/2022 dated 15 June 2022 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Upon receipt of the petitioners' representation setting out their objections to the June 2022 Memo, Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the same in accordance with law, issue notices to all concerned parties, and pass appropriate reasoned orders on the subject issue — namely, the change of ritual procedure from Shaiva Agama to Vaidika Smartha Agama — within three weeks thereafter.
Until that exercise was completed and appropriate orders passed by the first respondent within the stipulated timeframe, the respondents were directed not to proceed further under the impugned notification No. SSLNT/PLK/Notification/2025 dated 23 November 2025. There was no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition were closed.
Outcome
W.P. No. 13524 of 2026 was disposed of on 22 June 2026 by Mrs. Justice Surepalli Nanda. The recruitment notification dated 23 November 2025 for three Priest posts and one Assistant Cook post at Sri Someshwara Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Palakurthy, is stayed pending the State Government's decision on the petitioners' representation. The petitioners must file that representation before the State within one week, and the State must decide it within three weeks of receipt, after issuing notices to all concerned and passing a reasoned order on the Agama ritual dispute.